How will anyone overpower someone when major alliances are only getting 150-200 more resources than a player thats just sitting?

Major alliances are more active than players just sitting, they are more coordinated etc. Stagnant wars usually don't happen between a "major" alliance and players "just sitting". I don't see the problem here.

Quote:

A fast war from what I was saying isnt hourly based. Its tick based, it shouldn't take so long to get simple results in a war with this many people involved.

Why not? If I want fast results, I'll play some real time strategy game where matches take a few hours at most. Eras on BD are supposed to last for months (1 tick servers), so wars should last long as well. The CE isn't online for that long yet and the war between SAGE and VND lasts for only about 300 ticks. Not a long time for BD in my opinion.

In the end, the spies were the reason they got killed like that. And yes, you're right, it's not really strategy what I was talking about. But then, is there any deep strategy in a game like this? It's more about organization and coordination (and activity of course).I think the spy system isn't really the problem, I still don't see how it changed BD to the worse for the reasons I gave above. And you claim that you cannot attack your enemy at all is not true. If you overpower them you can always attack. It simply is more difficult. And nukes can be used to kill enemy agents. Of course it does slow down wars, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you want to have fast war, simply join a fast server. Usually wars are less stagnant there as the gameplay is less "strategic".

I don't agree, in the end it was their stupidity that got them killed like that, not the spies. It's not as if we managed to lock them down by some mastermind plan.

But really, if you overpower them you can always attack? Sure, I can launch 400 inf squads at my enemy 200 squads sitting on the OP. Then they lock me, damage me, and my 400 squads die. THAT is the reason you can't attack. As far as nukes are concerned, you can't really spare the energy needed to fire that many nukes, considering pretty much every single OP is unsafe.

For me it isn't about how slow wars are. A war in which people get pushed back and forth sounds great to me. But there is a difference between a slow war and two sides just sitting and waving at each other, being unable to attack.

Quote:

The new discussion you brought up about income and how it is generated is indeed an interesting one in my opinion. I'm completely against increasing taxation again though, simply because farming inactive noobs for income is bad game mechanics. Crystals are another point. Increasing the amount of crystals circulating would help to make the game more competitive again I think. So I'm very much in favor of the idea brought up by Simmen.

First of all, it's not increasing taxation "again". It has only been lowered. But why is that bad game mechanics? I agree that if this meant that newbies were kept down and killed repeatedly it would be bad game mechanics. But realistically 95+% of the people conquered are those that join, register and then never visit again. Those that do get active are usually a pain to keep conquered.

Quote:

Major alliances are more active than players just sitting, they are more coordinated etc. Stagnant wars usually don't happen between a "major" alliance and players "just sitting". I don't see the problem here.

How does it help when you are more coordinated and more active when you can't attack them? You don't need to be active at all to be able to stay and sit on an OP, the most that is needed is being able to get your members online to move out of the OP and then to lock and damage the OP, and return. That first of all comes down to a refresh battle rather than strategy, second of all discourages attacking and as a result slows down wars incredibly.

Quote:

Why not? If I want fast results, I'll play some real time strategy game where matches take a few hours at most. Eras on BD are supposed to last for months (1 tick servers), so wars should last long as well. The CE isn't online for that long yet and the war between SAGE and VND lasts for only about 300 ticks. Not a long time for BD in my opinion.

Again, I do not at all mind long wars, I don't mind long eras, the first era I really played here on BD lasted 2100 ticks during which I was online most ticks. It was tiring, but fun. What I however do mind is eras in which nothing is really happening and no side can advance very much. That for me is the difference between a long era and simply a stagnant era. Long eras are great, stagnant ones are not.

How do you get long eras? Make it so that there are more teams competing, make it so that there are not just a few alliances going for the win. I would much rather see us fight alliance after alliance and having a long era because of this than a long era that is simply long because you can't do anything and are sitting, throwing rocks at your enemies.

How do you get more teams to compete, in my opinion? First of all get rid of all these mechanics that "force" you to get an empire of allies and subs, and start encouraging single teams. Not balancing and nerfing everything so much that you are bound to rely on getting more allies than your enemy. Because sadly, that is largely the way to win. Individual alliances stand no chance.

_________________

Made by KazeToushin, thank you!

Won both Championship Eras as rank 1, hold best of all times rank 1, hold the power record and practically every other record.

Regarding the spy system I do see your points, Milanos. I wouldn't want the old spy system back anyway. With the current system it's maybe too difficult to attack but spies are an important part of the gameplay and I'd prefer them to be powerful. Im less convinced than I was when I first posted though.

Milanos wrote:

First of all, it's not increasing taxation "again". It has only been lowered. But why is that bad game mechanics? I agree that if this meant that newbies were kept down and killed repeatedly it would be bad game mechanics. But realistically 95+% of the people conquered are those that join, register and then never visit again. Those that do get active are usually a pain to keep conquered.

I know it was lowered. Used the wrong word here. I just think that the functioning of a game should not rely on people joining a server and not logging in again. And if newbies do log in but get killed repeatedly by conquerors, they will be put off by the game because they don't see a chance to do anything. I think it would be better if the admins could place more stuff to conquer, which gives income (similar to res OPs, with some units on and rebellions now and then). If admins already do place colonies to conquer, then they should place more (I was told they didnt but who knows). This would help to get out of the vicious circle of lower player numbers -> less things to do in the game -> less players. On the other hand, raising taxation probably doesn't hurt the game much so I'm not completely against it.

I know it was lowered. Used the wrong word here. I just think that the functioning of a game should not rely on people joining a server and not logging in again. And if newbies do log in but get killed repeatedly by conquerors, they will be put off by the game because they don't see a chance to do anything. I think it would be better if the admins could place more stuff to conquer, which gives income (similar to res OPs, with some units on and rebellions now and then). If admins already do place colonies to conquer, then they should place more (I was told they didnt but who knows). This would help to get out of the vicious circle of lower player numbers -> less things to do in the game -> less players. On the other hand, raising taxation probably doesn't hurt the game much so I'm not completely against it.

This is why colonies that dont log in are deleted. As for the conspiracies, Ive thought so too before but I don't think its suppose to discussed on the forums

ok the xtal arguments im hearing are making me laugh at 30 power you arent going to be able to defend your xtal when several people in the world have over 200 power and want xtals, now with that being said why not make having xtals at 20 power? at least they lose it and can build in peace without having their 1st set of army die right off the bat. as a noob i never minded losing an xtal but when i lost my army i was pissed

agents=crapits i'll sit here where i have 4 agentsyou sit there where you have 4 agents lets spam each other to make it seem like an actual warfun game right?

and as far as the structure building i like what milan suggested about having 10 achievements and then building however you want

subs i cant say much because there is nothing i could say that will end them

razing ops after 24 tiksim sorry but that was just rediculous admins arent going to catch that much more farming with that, i still see it all the time and i dont see more players banned

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum